Yep, even the new one. Why I think Rolling Stone, The Advocate, Time and The Times are projecting a fantasy liberal dreamboat Pope Francis on top of the real one, who isn’t a revolutionary and is saying the same things his predecessors did. My op-ed in today’s Post.

It’s true that Francis’ skepticism and harsh critiques of capitalism don’t differ from his predecessors, but it’s a matter of emphasis: The Pope is putting issues like poverty, income inequality, and the excesses of global capitalism more front and center. “No,” you might say, “it’s the media that’s putting it front and center.” But Francis is media-savvy — he knows exactly what buttons to push to get his message out.

Anyway, Francis is a Jesuit, and they tend to be much more liberal than many of their counterparts. His positions and emphases aren’t really that surprising.

The Cardinals didn’t pick a Aregentinian Jesuit (read: likely liberal) with a reputation for radical and humble ministry to the poor because they were looking for continuity with his conservative precdecessor — regardless of the fact that both happen to share the same antipathhy toward the excesses of global capitalism.

Yankeefan the cardinals definitely would not have picked Francis if they had known what they were going to get. They definitely got Soutered. That said Francis’s leftism is almost entirely a put on designed to deflect the left wing media from broadcasting his collaboration with the Argentinan juanta. That’s why for instance I’ve seen pictures of Pope Benedict in Hitler Youth uniforms from every conceivable angle but have yet to hear even a peep about Francis’s collaboration with the juanta.

And Kyle is absolutely correct Francis is embarrassingly unsophisticated when it comes to dealing with the media. This despite the fact he loves the attention. It is a pretty good example of just how big a drop in caliber it was from Benedict to Francis. Benedict was better at understanding the media culture he despised than Francis, who loves media attention. Francis gets good press because the media knows they can destroy him the second he deviates from their script.

The Pope does not fall neatly into the categories people like to use for Jesuits, who are in reality extremely difficult to categorize, save that none of them are afraid of hitting the books. They are not men who are afraid of subtlety, nor men who choose their way without any thought.

Unlike John Paul II, however, he did not train as an actor. He also sees himself as “Father Jorge” first, not s bishop or cardinal. He is oriented toward the personal contact of his pastoral office more than presenting himself as an administrative-type leader. That is going to show up in his “sound bites”.

Kyle – it is refreshing to read something by someone who understands the Catholic church a bit. Most commentary is so unbelievably stupid (Rolling Stone article, anything in the New York Times) that you can tell they are only repeating rumors that they heard.

As for Pope Benedict, remember that he accepted the job of the Vatican enforcer, as “God’s Rottweiler,” in his office of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He had twenty years of media pre-conception that went into his “public image.” The truth is, what he really had hoped for from the 2005 conclave was to be allowed to retire to Bavaria, a wish he will never realize. If he had been asked to head up The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, the media would have had different pre-conceived notions about him.

I’m not concerned about the Pope. He’s doing okay. One problem is the idea, fostered incessantly by the media, that history marches inexorably in the direction of enlightenment, and that anyone or anything opposing what is considered progress is backward and Neanderthal. The other problem is that too many people don’t bother to read the original documents or interviews in their entirety and original context, and instead rely on biased, uninformed headlines and articles for their news. The media know that they can repeat what are essentially lies often enough that people will believe them, since no one will ever look at the original sources. Thus, people eventually start to believe in the media caricature of the Pope, regardless of what he actually says.

Hi! I found you at Father Z.
Those of a conservative bent who fear the image of Pope Francis as created by the mass media should also be aware of the laughable and childishly simplistic image of ‘mean ole Benedict’ that the same media invents.

Kyle – great article.
yankeefan – what any Catholic understands is that the whole point of the Petrine ministry is continuity. The Pope’s responsibility is to be the Vicar of Christ on earth and the guardian of the Deposit of Faith. We have a Universal Catechism. Pope Francis is not going to depart from it. It’s called “papal infallibility”, a gift of the Holy Spirit which preserves the Pope from error in matters of faith and morals. In other words: no matter where he is from or what his personal charism is, the Pope, will in fact, always be Catholic.

The College of Cardinals is a NOT a monolith, and no one can speak for their intentions but the Holy Spirit. The Pope is who he is regardless of what any of the Cardinals intended. Who is that? Just read his words. Kyle, I think you nailed it with this piece. Well done.

Hello and thank you for your refreshingly accurate comments on Pope Francis and the reality that he is not what the media or other lunkheads seem to think he is.
Very well written, fair, and clear-headed writing. Somehow you managed to write an article about the Holy Father that did not include whining or fantasies of women priests or married homosexual clergy.

Why would we expect the Pope to disagree with Catholic teaching in general. Yes, he expresses himself differently from Pope Benedict, that’s because they’re different people. But we cannot expect this Pope, nor any in the future, to reject teachings found within the deposit of faith. I wish the media could understand that.

Those who are saying that Pope Benedict didn’t place the same emphasis on various issues are I think relying too heavily on what they have heard reported on the subject, which in Benedict’s case was less than not much. Second of all, I wouldn’t try to read the Cardinals’ minds, especially after caricaturing them first. Thirdly, I wouldn’t try to read Francis’s mind when it comes to the media. To do either is presumptuous.

Keep this up, Kyle, and you’ll get a reputation for being fair and balanced, the kiss of death in this polarized world. So, yes, I liked your take on Francis, I think it’s mostly right. One item I’ve not seen mentioned much is that the translations we get are often … ah… lacking, shall we say? Limbaugh’s rant was derived mostly from a bad translation, in my opinion.

You had me at your “Philomena – “Another Hateful & Boring Attack on Catholics”. Couldn’t believe they tried to run you out of town for that. Also couldn’t believe yours was the only review that wasn’t fawning all over it. (I did an amateur search.)
Love the title of this one! Saw it over by Fr Z.
I think you’re great!

The media distorted Benedict by presenting him as a Nationalsozialist, and the media is distorting Francis by presenting him as a national socialist of their own variety.

Just remember that the Catholic Church and her teachings predate America and its political categories by centuries. Any attempt to fit Catholic teaching into our modern day categories is going to fail.

Yep, Fr. Z was right, you’re on to something, young man. Kudos to you for not being afraid to tell the truth- wherever it may lead us. Maybe we still have a chance at restoring honest journalism, after all.

I hhave one nitpick: The Church’s teaching on capital punishment is not comparable to its teaching on abortion. Catholics are allowed to have dissenting opinions when it comes to capital punishment and its morality. There are to be no dissenting opinions on abortion. This is a critical difference.

thank you, thank you, for your common sense article. as a Catholic, I truly appreciate this, as it is tiring to keep hearing people assume that the Pope isnt Catholic. thank you for looking at context and the big picture rather than pulling isolated quotes and bending them to fit some false desire, as the mainstream media tends to do!

Bravo!
Maybe the most enjoyable article I have ever read.
“Someone’s got it in for me, they’re painting stories in the press. Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out, but when they will I can only guess.”
I’m an avid Dylan fan and Roman Catholic.
Father Z sent me.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ (and your new atheist friend, Kyle): Some of us see Pope Francis’ “shift” as one of emphasis. The emphasis appears to be resonant with many. And if you think he’s touching souls just because of what the New York Times or TIME magazine is writing, you’re giving way too much credit to those institutions, and way too little credit to the eyes and ears of many in the flock.

That Francis’ message is resonating with many erstwhile disaffected Catholics around the world isn’t a media creation.

Kyrie Eleison on us all! From F Z blog, I visit, commend you piece. In the interest of your inquiring mind, please read about approved apparitions of the church, also consider “heaven is real” and this testimony of Dr. Gloria Polo. It’s no doubt that the devil is working hard in years past and currently to pull souls away from God and his Christ (insert complete St Michael prayer) and is successful at it as we know. My neighbor, i will pray for your soul and mine today.

Great article. I am particularly impressed that you did your research and can actually write decent English. I read it on Father Z. I would be most interested in reading anything else you may write on religious issues.